Allowed

Sri.S.P.Vasantha Kumar v. Deputy Commissioner

Karnataka HC10 Jun 2021WP/9677/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged an observation in a revision order by the Deputy Commissioner directing KIADB to take action, fearing it clouds title. Court held observation creates no rights for KIADB, affirmed restoration of revenue entries, and directed Tahsildar to submit mutation within three months.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Tahsildar to act on representation and submit mutation within three months.

Sri.S.P.Vasantha Kumar Vs Deputy Commissioner — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 1O^TH DAY OF JUNE 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B. M. SHYAM PRASAD

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.9677 OF 2021 (KLR-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN

¶7

SRI. S.P VASANTHA KUMAR S/O LATE K.PUTTALINGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS KASABA HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT PIN CODE – 571 429 ... PETITIONER

¶8

(BY SRI. K.N. PUTTE GOWDA, ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND :

¶10

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, MANDYA DISTRICT, MANDYA PIN CODE – 571 401

¶11

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER MANDYA DISTRICT, MANDYA PIN CODE – 571 401

¶12

TAHSILDAR,

¶13

MANDYA DISTRICT, MANDYA PIN CODE – 571 401

¶14

MANAGING DIRECTOR, KIADB, METAGAHALLI, MYSORE – 570 016

¶15

¶16

SRI. PUSHPA KUMAR, PROPRIETOR, M/S VENKATESHWARA INDUSTRIES INDUSTRIAL ZONE, SOMANAHALLI, MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT PIN CODE – 571 429.

¶17

... RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI. R.SRINIVASA GOWDA, AGA., FOR R-1 TO R-3)

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS RELATING TO MR NO.14/200708 AND ORDER OF R2 PASSED IN CASE NO.154/2009-10 AND ORDER OF R1 PASSED IN CASE RP 62/2012; ISSUE WRIT OR CERTIORARI AND SET ASIDE THE OBSERVATION MADE IN THE ORDER OF 1^ST RESPONDENTS, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MANDYA PASSED IN CASE R.P. NO. 62/2012 ANNEXURE-G DATED 17.03.2020 DIRECTING THAT THE 4^TH RESPONDENT TO TAKE ACTION AS PER THE ORDER DATED 26.08.1980, 18.12.2009 AND ORDER DATED 08.08.2013 PASSED IN WRIT PETITION AND WRIT APPEAL .,

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

The learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Advocate, who accepts notice for the first to third respondents, are heard for final disposal while dispensing with notice to the other respondents given the limited nature of the petitioner’s grievance. The petitioner has filed this writ petition impugning certain observation by the first respondent – the Deputy Commissioner, Mandya while allowing the petitioner’s revision petition under Section 136 (3) of the Karnataka Land Revue in RP No. in No. 62/2012 and for consequential directions.

¶24

The learned counsel for the petitioner while submitting that the petitioner’s grievance is limited to the observation made by the Deputy Commissioner, Mandya District-the first respondent, prefaces his submission that it is unfortunate that the petitioner is repeatedly driven to this Court despite the acquisition of

¶25

¶26

the land measuring 39 guntas in Survey No. 22/2 of Somanahalli village, Kasaba-II zone, Maddur Taluk, Mandya District [the subject property] in favour of KIADB-the fourth respondent being quashed way back in the year 1980 by this Court in WP Nos. 14500 to 14502/1979.

¶27

The learned counsel points out that after this Court’s order in the aforesaid writ petition filed by the petitioner’s grandfather, Sri S.Kempaiah, the revenue records for the subject property were made in his grandfather’s name, and later in the name of the petitioner’s father, Sri K. Puttalingaiah. The revenue records continued in the name of the petitioner’s father without any objection, until the year 2007-08. Without any further proceedings in favour of M/s KIADB- the fourth respondent, the revenue entries for the subject property are mutated in its favour vide M.R. No.14/2007-08. This is at the instance of the fifth

¶28

¶29

respondent who is allotted certain portion of other land by the KIADB. The fifth respondent, who seems to be keen on taking over the subject land, approached this Court for a direction to the authorities to acquire the subject land. However, both the writ petition and writ appeal in W.P.No. 38087/2009 and W.A.No. 270/2010 are dismissed.

¶30

The learned counsel also points out that the Assistant Commissioner, Mandyathe second respondent has dismissed the petitioner’s appeal in R.Misc.No.154/09-10 as against the mutation entry in MR No.14/2007-08 and for restoration of the mutation entries in his favour only on the ground that the petitioner is not a party to earlier the writ proceedings. But, the Deputy Commissioner, Mandya District-the first respondent has allowed the petitioner’s revision petition in R.P. No. 62/2012 setting aside the second respondent's order dated 27.02.2012 but with certain

¶31

¶32

observation. The petitioner would be entitled to the revenue entries of the subject property consequent to the order of the Deputy Commissioner. However, the following observation is unwarranted in as much there is a direction to the fourth respondent to initiate "suitable action".

¶33

"¨sÁUÀ±ÀB j«d£ï Cfð ¥ÀÄgÀ¸ÀÌj¹zÉ. G¥À«¨sÁUÁ¢üPÁjAiÀÄªÀgÀ DzÉÃ±À gÀzÀÄÝ¥Àr¹zÉ.

¶34

GZÀÑ£ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ : 26.08.1990, 18.12.2009 & 08.08.2013gÀ DzÉÃ±ÀzÀ°è£À ¤zÉÃð±À£ÀzÀAvÉ 4£ÉÃ ¥ÀæwªÁ¢ CUÀvÀå PÀæªÀÄªÀ»¸À®Ä DzÉÃ²¹zÉ."

¶35

The learned counsel argues that this

¶36

observation is wholly unwarranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. The fourth respondentKIADB, after the disposal of the writ proceedings in WP Nos. 14500 to 14502/1979 cannot eclipse the petitioner’s right, title and interest to the subject matter

¶37

¶38

in any manner other than by a manner known to law and for that this observation would be entirely extraneous. This observation not only impedes the restoration of the revenue entries for the subject in favour of the petitioner but also creates, unjustifiably, an impression of cloud of doubt over the petitioner’s title to the subject property.

¶39

It is obvious from the above detailed circumstances that the order dated 27.02.2012 in R.Misc. No.154/2009-10 by the second respondent [the Assistant Commissioner, Mandya] is set aside by the Deputy Commissioner, Mandya District-the first respondent and consequently, the petitioner would be entitled for restoration of the revenue entries. Insofar as the observation as aforesaid, it would suffice for this Court to observe that such observation can neither create any right evening favour of M/s KIADB-the fourth

¶40

¶41

respondent [or any person claiming under M/s KIADB] or extinguish the petitioner’s right to the subject property.

¶42

The petitioner shall be at liberty to file a representation with the jurisdictional Tahsildar-the third respondent, within four weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, requesting for implementation of the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Mandya District insofar as the mutation of the revenue entries of the subject land. If such representation is filed by the petitioner, the jurisdictional Tahsildar-the third respondent shall act upon the same, in accordance with law and in light of the observation made by this Court expeditiously and in any event within an outer limit of three months from the date of receipt of such representation.

¶43

¶44

The writ petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid the observation and direction.

¶45

SD/JUDGE

¶46

mbb

Sri.S.P.Vasantha Kumar v. Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri.S.P.Vasantha Kumar v. Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Girija Prabhakar Vs Assistant Commissioner

Smt K Leelavathi Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Krishnamurthy Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S Siddharth Infotech Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commisioner of Public Instructions

Smt. Prabhavathi Vs State of Karnataka

Ashok Naika Vs Tahasildar